People are “consistently inconsistent” in reasoning about controversial topics

Re:People are “consistently inconsistent” in reasoning about... by npmaile on Tuesday November 13, 2018 @11:47AM (#18442404)

I could not disagree more with your second point.

Just because a group of misguided individuals support a specific idea, person, or ideology, doesn't mean that the thing they support should be judged based on the merits of those people. The things should be evaluated based on the individual merits of whatever it is.

Following your logic, I could easily say that Hitler was a vegetarian, so if you don't eat meat, you stand with Hitler.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:People are “consistently inconsistent” in reasoning about... by beat on Tuesday November 13, 2018 @12:10PM (#18442609)

"I could be wrong. I'm often wrong."

The guilt-by-association rule is not a hard and fast airtight conclusion. This is the stock criticism everyone is making, and it simply doesn't follow. It's evidence of a flaw, but not every bit of evidence is incontrovertible proof of whatever.

Really, doesn't anyone study logic anymore?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:People are “consistently inconsistent” in reasoning about... by ikeboy on Tuesday November 13, 2018 @12:55PM (#18443054)

Perhaps people are associating your arguments with other, flawed, arguments and assuming yours are flawed as well. Might not be incontrovertible proof but it's enough to critique you.

[ Parent | on HN ]